In this article, Vivian Louie examines how social class influences Chinese immigrant parents' expectations, strategies, and investment in their children's education. Her findings suggest that, across social class, Chinese immigrant parents have high expectations for their children, reflecting both immigrant optimism and immigrant pessimism about their children's outcomes. However, Louie finds significant differences in the resources and educational strategies pursued by working-class parents and their middle-class counterparts. Louie concludes that the role of the immigrant family is more multifaceted than suggested by previous theories on Asian American educational performance. (pp. 438-474) The last thirty years have seen a remarkable increase in Asian immigration to the United States. In 1960, there were only 877,934 Asian Americans; by 1990, the number had increased almost tenfold, to 7.3 million, with 66 percent of this population being foreign born (Hune & Chan, 1997). According to the 2000 U.S. Census, 10.24 million Asian Americans now live in the United States, representing 3.6 percent of the population. 1 These high levels of immigration have been accompanied by high levels of educational attainment, which have contributed to the reputation of Asian Americans as a "model minority"-that is, a group that has achieved a rapid ascent up the socioeconomic ladder by virtue of its educational success. 2 In the aggregate, Asian Americans have a higher likelihood than Whites, Hispanics, and Blacks of entering and staying in school. They outrank all other groups in GPA and math SAT scores, surpass the national average in college graduation rates, and are more likely to pursue further education (Espiritu, 1997; Hsia, 1988; Sue & Okazaki, 1990). 3 of 30 college degree or some college education (Weinberg, 1997). To account for the high educational aspirations and attainments of Asian Americans, researchers have pointed to the immigrant family, and have provided two critical ways of understanding its role. The cultural explanation stresses the parents' cultural resources that shape high educational aspirations for their children and particular strategies to achieve them. The structural explanation, by contrast, puts the emphasis on the economic demand for certain types of labor in different historical periods. Cultural Explanations The dominant explanation has been the cultural thesis-that Asian Americans have access to cultural resources that prove conducive to high levels of educational attainment. It is well-documented that Asian American children are more likely than children of other racial and ethnic groups (such as Whites and Latinos) to equate good grades with parental satisfaction and to share their parents' expectations (Hao & Bonstead-Bruns,

Higher education is crucial to the outcomes of the second generation. This paper explores the contrasting views second‐generation Dominicans and Chinese have on their educational trajectories and social mobility. Drawing on interviews with individuals who have gone on to college, I argue that the optimism of the Dominicans emerges from their use of both transnational and ethnic/panethnic perspectives. The Dominicans believe they are doing better than peers in the Dominican Republic and in the United States. The pessimism of the Chinese can be traced to their use of ethnic/panethnic frames of comparison. The Chinese believe they are faring worse than peers in the United States. The results complicate segmented assimilation and transnationalism theories.

No abstract

T he year 1965 was a watershed for K-12 education in the United States. The signing of the landmark Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) by President Lyndon B. Johnson was unique in several aspects: It was the first and largest federally funded K-12 education legislation of that era, and, in Title I, it addressed the issue of equity by targeting the educational needs of children from low-income families and improvements in the schooling they received. Designed as a compensatory education policy, ESEA was grounded in part in a discourse about cultures of poverty that could create generational disadvantage and consequently had as its main beneficiaries children from school districts with concentrated poverty. That same year, the passage of the Immigration Act reopened large-scale immigration to the United States after more than four decades of a closed-door policy. The lifting of racial and ethnocentric barriers to immigration, partly as a result of the civil rights movement, would have unforeseen implications for the K-12 student population (Alba & Nee, 2003;Bean & Stevens, 2003).Today we are at a crossroads with the legacies of both pieces of legislation: The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), the most recent reauthorization of ESEA, has linked achievement gaps among students from different socioeconomic, racial/ethnic, and immigrant backgrounds to school accountability mandates and parental choice of K-12 schools. Meanwhile, the new immigration has complicated existing racial, ethnic, and social class categorizations in the United States, giving rise to unprecedented racial/ethnic diversity in our nation's schools (Olsen, 2000;Rong & Brown, 2002). In the United States, 20% of young people less than 18 years of age are children of immigrants, both U.S. and foreign born, and 25% are from low-income families. By 2015, it is projected that they will make up 30% of the nation's K-12 population.In this chapter, I discuss immigrant newcomer populations and their experiences with K-12 schooling in preparation for and access to postsecondary education. How are immigrant newcomer students distinctive from and similar to native children 1 in terms of the pipeline to college? Much attention, for example, has been paid to the concept of immigrant optimism, namely, that immigrant parents are optimistic about

Based on the analysis of President Donald J. Trump’s social media, along with excerpts from his speeches and press releases, this study sheds light on the framing of white supremacy during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. Our findings reveal that the triad of divide, divert, and conquer was crucial to Trump’s communications strategy. We argue that racist nativism—or racialized national threats to American security—is key to comprehending the external divisiveness in this strategy. When Trump bitterly cast China as the cause of America’s pandemic fallout and Mexico as the source of other key American problems (i.e., crime and low-paid jobs for U.S.-born Americans), he sowed clear racialized divisions between the United States (U.S.). and these two nations. We further argue that nativist racism—or the framing of descendants from those nations as incapable of ever being American—is key to comprehending the internal divisiveness in the former President’s pandemic rhetoric. Trump’s framing of China and Mexico as enemies of America further found its culprits in Asian and Latino Americans who were portrayed as COVID-19 carriers. Trump’s narrative was ultimately geared to diverting attention from his administration’s mishandling of COVID-19, the dismal structural conditions faced by detained and undocumented Latinos, and the anti-Asian bias faced by some of his Asian American constituents. In the conclusions, this article makes a call for countering white supremacy by developing comparative approaches that pay more attention to how different racisms play out for different groups.